Dead on the board vs Value on the board.

[Stillriledup]

Ok, so we had long thread about Tonalist and how he was a "great price" and that's why someone plunked 200k down on him at the load. Many in the thread said that the reason for the big bet was that Tonalist was an "overlay" and a "good bet" or he had value and the large bettor saw that value and pounded an overlay.

So, on July 13th at Belmont, in the 7th race, a horse named Readthebyline was 5-2 ML and he was coming off a huge win, with a very fast Beyer fig, 109 or something like that. He opened up 6-1 and stayed there, he was amazing value and yet, nobody "Adjusted" his price, this horse took "no money" and raced like "they" knew he had no chance.

So, all Tonalist and Readthebyline discussions aside, what these threads really come down to is the huge money has information that's not in the PPs and its not something you can see on tape. So, what is it? What is the information that's not video information and not PP based information, what could it be?

[thaskalos]

The missing link is the "medication" information.

Some people know when the horse is on its meds...and when its not.

[Stillriledup]

The missing link is the "medication" information.

Some people know when the horse is on its meds...and when its not.

Its amazing that the guy who has the ability to bet 200k on a racehorse is one of the people who knows something that's not on tape or in the PPs.

[thaskalos]

Its amazing that the guy who has the ability to bet 200k on a racehorse is one of the people who knows something that's not on tape or in the PPs.
Information is power, my friend. And money goes to power.

The information that WE get is YESTERDAY'S news. :)

[HUSKER55]

If I remember, and I may not, that 106 was a spike and the regular Beyer's were in the low to mid 80's. That day's race was his second (???) outing at Belmont so he was coming off a layoff and he felt great.

I would not have pegged his speed rate any higher than 85 because that speed rate was a spike and I always take 20 points off of a spike.

But that is just me.

JMHO

[burnsy]

Information is power, my friend. And money goes to power.

The information that WE get is YESTERDAY'S news. :)

That's why it's a race by race judgment call. I'll even admit to it being part "luck". Because the money and info is many times a non-factor......It's a " are you willing to take stand kind of decision." I know the number and program people don't want to hear about it..........but you got to develop gambling (horse) "spider senses". Then be willing to eat it if you are wrong.

[Overlay]

I realize that there will always be information that I'm not privy to, but I try to deal with that by looking at the winning chances of every horse in the field, rather than eliminating horses out-of-hand. Also, breaking my handicapping down into individual factors usually enables me to come up with a plausible explanation for why a horse is at "suspiciously" high odds, either because of something I can identify that the public is missing or undervaluing, or that is causing the public to overbet one or more of the other horses in the race.

[Nosed]

I don't really know a answer.But it's a reason I think the "Tote Board" readers have just as good a chance of coming up with a winner as those of us that handicap. Checking out the win, place, show, exacta, etc. money sometimes is just as good as doing all the figuring of traditional handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

I've always thought that a good way to separate the overlays from the dead money was whether you could explain the high odds logically.

If I know that horse X raced on a dead rail at PARX and he's shipping into NY, I probably have information that very few people have. So if the horse goes off long, I'm OK with betting it. I know he's better than he looks on paper.

If everything about a horse's PPs shouts "favorite" and he's 6-1, I may double check the Beyer figure, look for a negative trainer move that I may have missed etc...but I'm worried.

[Robert Fischer]

What is the information that's not video information and not PP based information, what could it be?

Tonalist was there on video and pp based information for all to see.

However, the 7/2 shot named California Chrome, was 4/5, because he had just won the first two triple crown legs, - not because the information given would lead any reasonable handicapper to estimate that he was a 4/5 shot.

[Robert Fischer]

Readthebyline - was a bad morning line. He was apparently overrated by the ML oddsmaker (or was thought to be expected to fool the public). In that Same race, Bad Hombre was wayyy higher in the ML than most players knew he belonged.

...

To (accurately) play along w/ the Dead on the Board / Value on the Board game, you first must have an accurate understanding of the information that is there for all to see (you may play along regardless, but your mileage may vary).

Then you can look at the odds and say "the information given suggests the odds should be 'x', yet... they are 'y'.


Then you can determine whether you understand the reason that the odds are different.

* If you don't understand the reason the odds are different then you have to respect the unexpected odds scenario, and may even have to pass the race.

[Capper Al]

There's no way around watching the tote-board for hidden info the average punter can't find in the PPs. The tote-board allows us to guess if the barn is going to try today.

[tophatmert]

When the information needed is supplied, as in this case, you should pay attention to it .Michelle Nevin off. Life will be easier for you in New York if you can develop a good sense of what is going on with Rudyrod , DJ, Nevin and a few others.

[Robert Fischer]

You look at a horse and ask whether or not his odds/odds-ranking are are accurate, and you come up with one of these answers:

1. I don't know.
2. Horse seems to strongly deserve his odds/odds-ranking.
3. Horse seems to belong in his odds/odds-ranking by default.
4. Horse seems to be an underlay in his odds/odds-ranking.

It's a parimutuel game, so the lower the public odds the more priority a horse has, because it has a bigger bucket of money in front of it.

Most of the time you will answer #1, or #3.

[Stillriledup]

Readthebyline - was a bad morning line. He was apparently overrated by the ML oddsmaker (or was thought to be expected to fool the public). In that Same race, Bad Hombre was wayyy higher in the ML than most players knew he belonged.

...

To (accurately) play along w/ the Dead on the Board / Value on the Board game, you first must have an accurate understanding of the information that is there for all to see (you may play along regardless, but your mileage may vary).

Then you can look at the odds and say "the information given suggests the odds should be 'x', yet... they are 'y'.


Then you can determine whether you understand the reason that the odds are different.

* If you don't understand the reason the odds are different then you have to respect the unexpected odds scenario, and may even have to pass the race.

So, if RTBL was a bad ML, not everyone in the world has to agree. There just needs to be one large player who thinks 6-1 is a massive overlay and acts accordingly. He was 5-2 and was coming off a very easy win with a spectacular Beyer figure......yet, not one big bettor thought that 6-1 was a great price. Also, a lot of largest players are betting with computers who are betting FOR them...yet, nobody's computer said "big overlay with 0 MTP, bet 5k to win". Did everyone who has computers bet for them peg this horse at 6-1? Nobody thought 4-1 or even 5-1? Because if some huge bettor's program had him as a 5-1 ML, he would have been bet down to those odds at the last possible second...and he wasn't.

[Robert Fischer]

yet, nobody's computer said "big overlay with 0 MTP, bet 5k to win".

The smart-ass answer to that question: The player's with the computer programs that auto-bet 5K on that kind of horse at the last second have long since gone broke/ switched to a different venture.


TBH, I really don't know.
The 1 was was a big morning line underlay. I don't even have the minute-by-minute late odds information.
I would guess that he would have drifted up late, and maybe the 8 drifted down, but I can't recall.
It's hard to make money on 6-1 fringe contenders, that you think should maybe be 5-1, even if you are a millionaire with a fancy computer program.

[thespaah]

There's no way around watching the tote-board for hidden info the average punter can't find in the PPs. The tote-board allows us to guess if the barn is going to try today.
I concur. I make a point to watch the first few flashes of the new betting period.
I look primarily at exacta probables. Then at Double and Pick 3 will pays.
If something is out of kilter, I will mark that horse in my program and continue to watch for the anomaly to continue. If the numbers start 'making sense' based on the win odds, I know it's probably just public money or even 'dead money'...

[Poindexter]

So, if RTBL was a bad ML, not everyone in the world has to agree. There just needs to be one large player who thinks 6-1 is a massive overlay and acts accordingly. He was 5-2 and was coming off a very easy win with a spectacular Beyer figure......yet, not one big bettor thought that 6-1 was a great price. Also, a lot of largest players are betting with computers who are betting FOR them...yet, nobody's computer said "big overlay with 0 MTP, bet 5k to win". Did everyone who has computers bet for them peg this horse at 6-1? Nobody thought 4-1 or even 5-1? Because if some huge bettor's program had him as a 5-1 ML, he would have been bet down to those odds at the last possible second...and he wasn't.

Unfortunately the guys that bet the kind of money to drive down the prices are not going to be betting this horse. They are far too sharp for that(the point I have been trying to convey to you). But look on the bright side, while they were hammering the winner, the price on your "overlay" drifted up. Ah the benefits of rebates.

[classhandicapper]

I just looked at the horse in question.

His last race was on a track I made very likely to a Good Rail & Good Speed track. He was claimed, going to Bruce Brown, and off for over 2 months. I don't think that horse was perceived by most people to be very likely to duplicate that effort. The rest of his recent record did not make him a strong contender. So he was likely to take more money than the rest of his record indicated, but nowhere near as much as if he last race looked legit or his overall record also made him a contender. He also wasn't picked on top by any of the public handicappers in the consensus.

It looks more like a bad morning line. I would have guessed around 4-1 or 9/2. I guess you can argue that 6-1 was kind of dead, but I don't think this was way out of line.

[Some_One]

TBH, I really don't know.
The 1 was was a big morning line underlay. I don't even have the minute-by-minute late odds information.
I would guess that he would have drifted up late, and maybe the 8 drifted down, but I can't recall.
It's hard to make money on 6-1 fringe contenders, that you think should maybe be 5-1, even if you are a millionaire with a fancy computer program.

According to HPI intervals, he was 5 or 6 to 1 the whole way and the 8 was 5/2 or 3-1 the whole way.

[Some_One]

I just looked at the horse in question.

His last race was on a track I made very likely to a Good Rail & Good Speed track. He was claimed, going to Bruce Brown, and off for over 2 months. I don't think that horse was perceived by most people to be very likely to duplicate that effort. The rest of his recent record did not make him a strong contender. So he was likely to take more money than the rest of his record indicated, but nowhere near as much as if he last race looked legit or his overall record also made him a contender. He also wasn't picked on top by any of the public handicappers in the consensus.

It looks more like a bad morning line. I would have guessed around 4-1 or 9/2. I guess you can argue that 6-1 was kind of dead, but I don't think this was way out of line.

It wasn't a bad morning line, the morning line should guess how the public will bet and the public loves early speed and big figures which this horse had. I agree he had some major red flags but the average handicapper usually doesn't see those red flags

[Billnewman]

im trying to remember a horse race nationally televised. Believe it was 1998. It was a gray horse in California. I know this is a longshot to jog someones memory. The horse was 12/1 and the owner, an Englishmen or Aussie put 200k on his nose with 2min to post and dropped the odds to 5/2. The horse won and thats how the world found out about his wager in the post race interview. He was known as a punter. I was impressed.

[pandy]

I didn't look at this particular horse, but generally speaking, you have to be careful about avoiding bets because you think horses are dead on the board. All overlays are dead on the board, but the best way to show a profit is to bet overlays. I have hit hundreds of overlaid winners that appeared dead on the board. If I had been scared off of those bets because the odds seemed suspiciously high, I would have essentially given away all of my profit.

[classhandicapper]

It wasn't a bad morning line, the morning line should guess how the public will bet and the public loves early speed and big figures which this horse had. I agree he had some major red flags but the average handicapper usually doesn't see those red flags

I understand your point, but at NYRA the bettors don't miss much.

[cnollfan]

im trying to remember a horse race nationally televised. Believe it was 1998. It was a gray horse in California. I know this is a longshot to jog someones memory. The horse was 12/1 and the owner, an Englishmen or Aussie put 200k on his nose with 2min to post and dropped the odds to 5/2. The horse won and thats how the world found out about his wager in the post race interview. He was known as a punter. I was impressed.

Urgent Request, Santa Anita Handicap, 1995.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-12/sports/sp-41771_1_urgent-request

[AndyC]

I understand your point, but at NYRA the bettors don't miss much.

If that is true, why would anybody want to bet a NYRA track?

[classhandicapper]

If that is true, why would anybody want to bet a NYRA track?

Large pools, high quality racing, an afternoon at Belmont or Saratoga is heavenly, familiarity with the trainers/jockeys, habit...... It's hard for me to compare NY sharpness to other tracks, but I think NY players are very sharp.

[pandy]

I agree, but there are overlays in the longshot ranges. It's hard to find an overlay there below 4-1, but there are live longshots.

[Stillriledup]

I didn't look at this particular horse, but generally speaking, you have to be careful about avoiding bets because you think horses are dead on the board. All overlays are dead on the board, but the best way to show a profit is to bet overlays. I have hit hundreds of overlaid winners that appeared dead on the board. If I had been scared off of those bets because the odds seemed suspiciously high, I would have essentially given away all of my profit.

I don't agree that all overlays are dead on the board...there's a difference between a horse who's live but overlaid for some random reason and a horse who is "Dead" and taking much less money than he "should" if he was live. Maybe or maybe not the horse in my original example is not one of a dead board horse and he was always supposed to be 6-1, but there is a difference between dead on board and overlays. Maybe Gus can explain this better.

[Stillriledup]

AnYone watch or bet todays 9 th at monmouth?

Jorge "the genius" had a horse in there w back to back easy wins, beyers Of 86 and 86 and went off 3-1 vs the winner who had Beyers of 83 and 79 as well as being a 3yo vs older and he went off 1-1. The crowd bet the race as if the 83/79 beyer horse was 20 lengths "faster" than the genius horse and they were right.

[Robert Fischer]

Grand Arch was a good example today in the Forbidden Apple. He was a horse with good looking paper form, and declining real-life form. Some handicappers were calling his higher than ML odds an 'overlay', but in fact he was cold on the board or dead on the board. He did take some ill-advised late money, but never factored.

[thespaah]

If I remember, and I may not, that 106 was a spike and the regular Beyer's were in the low to mid 80's. That day's race was his second (???) outing at Belmont so he was coming off a layoff and he felt great.

I would not have pegged his speed rate any higher than 85 because that speed rate was a spike and I always take 20 points off of a spike.

But that is just me.

JMHO
That is a perfect example of a potential bounce horse.
Of course seeing the big number, I would have then carefully watched the exotic pools to see whether or not the horse was being ignored in the win pool but taking money in the Doubles P3's and exactas.
If the horse was taking an inordinate amount of play, I would include that entrant in my bets. if not, i wouldn't. Follow the money.

[thespaah]

I've always thought that a good way to separate the overlays from the dead money was whether you could explain the high odds logically.

If I know that horse X raced on a dead rail at PARX and he's shipping into NY, I probably have information that very few people have. So if the horse goes off long, I'm OK with betting it. I know he's better than he looks on paper.

If everything about a horse's PPs shouts "favorite" and he's 6-1, I may double check the Beyer figure, look for a negative trainer move that I may have missed etc...but I'm worried.
Or a negative rider change.